G.R. No.

196434 : October 24, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CHITO NAZARENO, Respondent.

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

This case is about the evidence required for proving conspiracy and the qualifying
circumstance of abuse or superior strength in a murder case.

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila charged the accused Chito Nazareno and
Fernando Saliendra, a barangay tanod, of murder before the Regional Trial Cow1 (RTC)
of that city in Criminal Case 94-133117.1 ςrνll

Since Saliendra remained at-large, only Nazareno was tried. The prosecution presented
Roy Magallanes, Roger Francisco, SPO1 Teodoro Sinag, SPO1 Julian Bustamante, Dr.
Antonio E. Rebosa, and Jovelo Valdez.2 ςrνll

On November 10, 1993 David Valdez (David), Magallanes, and Francisco attended the
wake of a friend. While there, they drank liquor with accused Nazareno and
Saliendra.3  A heated argument ensued between Magallanes and Nazareno but their
ςrνll

companions pacified them.4 ςrνll

On the following day, November 11, David, Magallanes, and Francisco returned to the
wake. Accused Nazareno and Saliendra also arrived and told the three not to mind the
previous nights altercation. At around 9:30 in the evening, while David, Francisco, and
their friend, Aida Unos were walking on the street, Nazareno and Saliendra blocked
their path.5  Nazareno boxed Francisco who fled but Saliendra went after him with a
ςrνll

balisong.6  Francisco, who succeeded in hiding saw Nazareno hit David on the body with
ςrνll

a stick while Saliendra struck Davids head with a stone.7  David ran towards a gasoline Ï‚rνll

station but Nazareno and Saliendra, aided by some barangay tanods, caught up with
him.8  As David fell, the barangay tanods took over the assault.9  This took place as
ςrνll ςrνll

Magallanes stood about five meters across the highway unable to help his
friend.10  Afterwards, Unos brought David to the hospital.11  Dr. Rebosa performed
ςrνll ςrνll

surgery on Davids head but he died on November 14, 1993 of massive intra-cranial
hemorrhage secondary to depressed fracture on his right temporal bone12  in a form of Ï‚rνll

blunt trauma.13 ςrνll

On November 12, 1993 after Davids relatives reported the killing to the police, SPO1
Sinag investigated the case and took Unoss statement.14  On November 15, Ï‚rνll

accompanied by SPO1 Bustamante and two other police officers, SPO1 Sinag went to
the UST Hospital and took a look at Davids body, noting the wounds on his
forehead.15  Subsequently, the officers went to the crime scene but found no witness
ςrνll

there.

In his defense, accused Nazareno claimed that he left his house at around 9:30 in the
evening on November 11, 1993 to buy milk. While on a street near his house, he noted
a commotion taking place nearby. He then bumped into Saliendra. Nazareno proceeded
home and went to bed.16  His wife Isabel supported his testimony, claiming that she
ςrνll

asked her husband on that night to buy milk for their children. When Nazareno returned
home, he informed her of the commotion outside and how someone bumped into
him.17ςrνll

Unos testified that she saw Saliendra chasing David as the latter hang on the rear of a
running jeepney. She claimed that she did not see Nazareno around the place.18 ςrνll

On March 9, 2004, the RTC found Nazareno guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder,
qualified by abuse of superior strength and aggravated by treachery. The RTC
sentenced Nazareno to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay
P141,670.25 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 as
moral damages, without any subsidiary imprisonment.19 ςrνll

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the decision of the
RTC. 20  Finding no treachery, it convicted Nazareno of murder qualified by abuse of
ςrνll

superior strength, hence, this appeal.

The issues in this case are:

1. Whether or not Nazareno took part in a conspiracy to kill David;

2. Whether or not a qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the

The Courts Ruling

One. As a rule, the factual findings of the trial court are, except for compelling or
exceptional reasons, conclusive to the Court especially when fully supported by
evidence and affirmed by the CA.21  Here, no sound reason exists to alter the findings of
ςrνll

the RTC and the CA with respect to the facts they deemed to have been proved and the
credibility of the witnesses.22 ςrνll

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.23  Actions indicating close personal
ςrνll

association and shared sentiment among the accused can prove its presence.24  Proof Ï‚rνll

that the perpetrators met beforehand and decided to commit the crime is not necessary
as long as their acts manifest a common design and oneness of purpose.

Here, both the RTC and the CA found conspiracy in attendance. Magallanes and
Francisco testified that accused Nazareno and Saliendra purposely waited for David and
his companions out on the street as they came out of the wake. The witnesses testified
that each of Nazareno and Saliendra took concerted steps aimed at killing or causing
serious harm to David. Nazareno repeatedly struck David on the area of his neck with a
stick; Saliendra hurled a fist-sized stone on his head. Even when David tried to flee,
they still chased him and together with other barangay tanods, beat him to
unconsciousness. Although Magallanes testified that Saliendra and Nazareno acted
"quite differently" from each other before the attack,25  their actions before and during
ςrνll

the incident reveal a common purpose.26  Saliendra appears to have delivered the fatal
ςrνll
blow but Nazareno cannot escape liability because, in conspiracy, the act of one is the
act of all.27 ςrνll

Magallanes and Francisco saw the commission of the offense from different angles but
the core of their stories remains cohesive. The result of the autopsy of Davids body
corroborates such stories. True their accounts have certain inconsistencies but these do
not weaken their credibility since they concurred on material points.28  Rather, those Ï‚rνll

small inconsistencies strengthened their credibility as they evince spontaneity and

testimonies.30 ςrνll

Taken against these considerations, the Court cannot give credence to Nazarenos
defense of alibi. To be admissible, not only must he be at a different place during the
commission of the crime, his presence at the crime scene must also be physically
impossible.31  Here, Nazareno even admits that he encountered Saliendra, the accused
ςrνll

who went into hiding, on the street and noticed the commotion.32 ςrνll

Two. The CA held that the killing of David should be characterized as one of murder
qualified by abuse of superior strength. The Court finds no fault in this ruling. There is
abuse of superior strength when the aggressors purposely use excessive force
rendering the victim unable to defend himself.33  The notorious inequality of forces
ςrνll

creates an unfair advantage for the aggressor.

Here, Nazareno and Saliendra evidently armed themselves beforehand, Nazareno with a
stick and Saliendra with a heavy stone. David was unarmed. The two chased him even
as he fled from them. And when they caught up with him, aided by some unnamed
barangay tanods, Nazareno and Saliendra exploited their superior advantage and
knocked the defenseless David unconscious. He evidently died from head fracture
caused by one of the blows on his head.

On the matter of penalty, the Court affirms the imposition of reclusion perpetua.34  The Ï‚rνll

Court retains the amount of P141,670.25 as actual damages.35  But, consistent with Ï‚rνll

current jurisprudence, 36  the Court is awarding P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,

P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. ςηαοblενιrυαllαωlιbrαr

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. 01308 dated December 17, 2010, that found Chito Nazareno guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength
in Criminal Case 94-133117.

The Court also AFFIRMS the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on accused
Nazareno but MODIFIES the award of damages to P141,670.25 as actual damages,
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages, and to pay the costs. ςrαlαωlιbrαr

SO ORDERED.